Islam v. Razzak

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1379

Syllabus

Domestic relations; post-decree motion hearing; motion for continuance; abuse of discretion; Sup.R. 41(B); ineffective assistance of counsel; right to counsel; ex parte; cumulative-error doctrine; App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7). Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff-appellant's motion for continuance. In light of the discovery delays created by plaintiff-appellant, the trial court's clear directives regarding continuances based on counsel's unavailability, plaintiff-appellant's eleventh-hour motion for continuance, and plaintiff-appellant's complete failure to appear for the post-decree motion hearing, we cannot say that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in denying the motion. Moreover, Sup.R. 41(B) did not require the granting of plaintiff-appellant's motion for continuance in this case. Next, we find no grounds for reversal based on plaintiff-appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaintiff-appellant did not have a constitutional right to counsel at this domestic-relations hearing, and the trial court was within its right to proceed with the hearing in plaintiff-appellant's and his counsel's absence. Finally, since plaintiff-appellant did not provide any legal authority to suggest that (1) any error — let alone multiple — occurred and (2) application of the cumulative-error doctrine is appropriate in this case, we decline to find that the doctrine mandates reversal.